...
By Anna Rahmanan
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
America awoke on Wednesday to a familiar postelection ritual—winners claiming mandates, losers nursing grievances and both parties preparing to resume their favorite pastime of questioning the other side's moral character while semi-ignoring the key question. Where do we go from here?
Into this distinctly unholy atmosphere stepped Pope Leo XIV, with a message about political power that neither party could comfortably claim as its own.
Speaking in St. Peter's Square the day after America's midterm elections, the first American pope offered a rather inconvenient proposition—political authority exists to serve the common good, with the welfare of the entire human family in mind.
Read More on News
To be clear, the pope was continuing a scheduled series of reflections on the Second Vatican Council, rather than delivering a speech specifically about American politics. The timing, nevertheless, gave his words an unmistakable resonance and the awkwardness, rather refreshingly, was bipartisan.
For Republicans who frequently invoke Christianity while championing President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown, Leo's emphasis on protecting migrants and vulnerable people presents an uncomfortable question. How can a government claim to uphold Christian values while treating some of the people those values call it to protect so harshly?
Democrats, on the other hand, might find the pope's emphasis on migrants and social justice rather congenial. His broader message, however, presents a challenge to the left's increasingly tribal political instincts.
Related Story
Israel Skeptics Flood Congress in Stinging Defeat for AIPAC
Compassion is relatively easy when directed toward people whose suffering confirms one's existing convictions. But extending it to political opponents, including those whose beliefs one finds objectionable, requires considerably more generosity.
Democrats can reasonably argue that defending vulnerable people demands fierce opposition to policies they perceive to be harmful. Leo's appeal for peace poses a sharper question—can they fight those policies without treating the people who support them as enemies unworthy of compassion?
There's another level to it all. For Democrats savoring their victories, the temptation may be to rub Republican noses in defeat rather than offer magnanimity. For Republicans nursing their losses, a lecture on grace and good manners may be about as welcome as another election-night projection. Neither mood is especially receptive to a pope suggesting that political triumph calls for humility and political defeat for dignity.
And so there is something almost mischievous about the timing. American politics has become adept at turning moral language into partisan ammunition, with each side claiming the higher ground while treating its opponents as unworthy of occupying it.
Leo's message arrives like an unwelcome sermon at a victory party and an equally unwelcome lecture at a wake. Democrats may want to savor their victory while Republicans may prefer to lick their wounds. The pope, meanwhile, is asking both to perform the one political miracle for which neither seems particularly inclined to pray: to remember that the people on the other side of the ballot are human beings, too.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines